Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-01-16; City Council; 5250-4; Agua Hedionda LagoonCITY OF CARLSBAD . Initial: AGENDA BILL NO. SQ^O — V4^^ -&- j^ Dept. Hd. DATE: JANUARY 16,197.9 C. DEPARTMENT: Utilities and Maintenance C. Mgr. Subject: AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON; POLICY ISSUES Statement of the Matter Council received a report by David Smith and Associates entitled "An Analysis of Dredging Requirements for Agua Hedionda Lagoon" at their regular meeting of December 5, 1978. Council approved the report and directed staff to develop a summary of key issues relating to the future of the Lagoon in order to assist Council in developing strategies and policies. Copies of the Smith report have been provided to San Diego Gas and Electric and the Bureau of Fish and Game in order to elicit their comments concerning future dredging programs. The Director of Utilities and Maintenance has developed a short report which is attached. EXHIBITS: A. Memorandum from the Director of Utilities and Maintenance Department, 1/5/79, RECOMMENDATION: The report is submitted for discussion purposes. Council should discuss and provide staff with further guidance. Specific recommendations are included on page 3 of Mr. Greer's report dated January 5, 1979. (See Page 2 for Council action) Agenda Bill No. 5250 - Supplement #4 Page 2 Council Action: 1-16-79 Council directed staff to defer any long term commitment for lagoon management or maintenance until the issue of ownership is resolved; and Council directed staff to conduct discussions with the Department of Fish and Game to determine their position on the matter of dredging the middle and inner lagoon to accomplish the purposes of Dr. Smith's study, and if the Department of Fish and Game agrees that dredging would not be an obstacle, then staff is directed to monitor the siltation rates as proposed by Mr. Greer in his second recommendation for the amount of $4,000.00 a year; and Council directed staff to investigate the matter of a proposed speed limit with the owners of Snug Harbor and boat users, and to report back to Council, said report to also include consideration of tide elements and the possibility of each person using the lagoon to supply their own insurance. January 5, 1979 MEMORANDUM 79-°8 TO: City Manager FROM: Director of Utilities & Maintenance SUBJECT: Agua Hedionda Lagoon; Policy Issues The City presently leases the middle and inner lagoons from SDG&E on a year to year basis. This lease was originally entered into in 1962 for two, five year periods, with it continuing on a year-to-year basis there- after. The lease allows recreational use of the lagoons and provides that the City will "police, regulate and control entry and activities" accept liability and hold SDG&E harmless. The title to the lagoon, held by SDG&E appears to be clouded in that it originally included tide lands along the original stream bed. The lagoon was a part of an original Spanish land grant which the State of California has never included in public trust considerations, however in the case of Agua Hedionda the State Lands Commission has considered some lands (original stream-'bed and tidal flats) as public trust. Several title companies have entered into litigation in this regard as it effects many titles that they have previously ensured in original rancho lands such as Newport Harbor. I am unable to determine what the status of this suit is at the present time or give an estimate as to when it may be resolved. It appears that a long term arrangement for use of the lagoon should be deferred until such time as the ownership question is finally resolved. A long term arrangement is assumed to be the Council's intent, based on their approval of the Agua Hedionda Specific Plan (para 6.6., Page 14), which states "The City shall, within sixty (60) days, negotiate on a long term lease for use of the water surface of the lagoon with SDG&E." Since the ownership question and the final specific plan are, as this date, unre- solved, perhaps it is appropriate to review the City's alternatives regarding management of the lagoon. ALTERNATIVE 1: Acquire surface rights by lease or other long term arrangement. ADVANTAGES: 1. Ensures coordination between lagoon use and land-use surrounding the lagoon. 2. Ensures use by the public. 3. May prbvide revenues which will offset City costs (partially or in the long term totally). DISADVANTAGES: ' 1. Liability for unsafe conditions rests with the City. (This liability exists even on short term present agreement). Agua Hedionda (co; nued) -2- • January 5, 1979 2. Liability may be reduced by dredging (at a cost of $500,000 - $750,000) or may be reduced by changing existing use (placing power restriction or prohibiting power boat use of the inner lagoon) or by restrictive speed limits in the shoal and landing area. 3. Management policing and maintenance costs will increase with existing use. ALTERNATIVE 2: Return Lagoon Management Responsibilities to SDG&E. ADVANTAGES: 1. The City is no longer liable for management of the lagoon. DISADVANTAGES: 1. City looses ability to provide public access. 2. City looses ability to coordinate use with surrounding land-use decisions. 3. Police requirements will most likely increase due to trespass and noise violations in that SDG&E has limited police powers and any actions they may take to limit access/use will increase violations. ALTERNATIVE 3: Encourage other public agencies (Federal, State or County) to assume management of the lagoon from SDG&E. ADVANTAGES: 1. The City is no longer liable for management of the lagoon. 2. Public access may be provided. DISADVANTAGES: 1. Coordination of lagoon use and surrounding land use may be more difficult. 2. Public access will not be under control of the City or may be limited by the management agency. 3. Management and maintenance efforts may not be at the level desired by the City i.e., Buena Vista Lagoon requires City effort to police and perform litter pick-up. \ 4. Policing requirements may/may not be reduced. Agua Hedionda (cont..<ued) -3- . Januar* 5' 1979 DISCUSSION: The lagoon is a major geographic feature in the City of Carlsbad and has the potential for providing a wide variety of recreational uses. Alternatives 2 and 3 obviously have the distinct advantage of getting the City out of direct involvement with the lagoon and potential liabilities associated with it. However, the lagoon is such a major feature within the City's boundaries, it will always cry for City involvement and it is the form of involvement that the Council may address. The City will be called upon to directly manage or through regulatory/planning/public interest pressures be called upon to guide the management; policing may be required as a direct result of the management effort or in response to public requests. It should be recognized that the lagoon will require direct City involvement in one form or another forever. A major concern of the lagoon relates to the City liabilities to protect the safety, health and welfare of the using public. The point should be made that the "using public" is an all inclusive term not restricted to those who use it's surface, but to the public which enjoys it's vistas, trails around it, the buffering it provides from noise, and the sanctuary it provides for wildlife. Thus, decisions which relate to surface users (allowing power boats) may have a negative effect on those who treasure it's solitude. Each segment of user is quick to argue their points of view and probably no single feature in Carlsbad can be counted upon to have as large a roster of advocate groups. It appears, however, that an equitable decision on the lagoons future can be made on a cost-"benefit basis. Below are some of the major considerations that should be included in the cost-benefit rationale. 1. Liability Considerations: a. Dredging (if all regulatory processes could be satisfied) would minimize obstacles to power boating. This is a high cost program and would benefit a select public group. Limitations on boating would be restricted only by density (number of boats at one time), noise output and speed. b. Limiting boating or restricting speeds in dangerous areas. This requires a higher level of policing and will reduce the number of-people who might enjoy this sport (it might increase the numbers of those who wish to fish, etc., however). The only commercially developed landing presently on the lagoon would obviously be adversely affected in that the landing might no longer be usable by boaters and water skiers. 2. Revenues: a. The City does not presently have a direct revenue source from users of the lagoons surface. Revenues are derived indirectly for use by property tax on the landing, business license fees and sales tax from retail sales of the landing. A rough estimate Agua Hedionda (continued) -4- January 5, 1979 of the revenues derived by the City in FY79 is approximately $2750. Direct City costs for patrol salaries, boat maintenance and bouy maintenance during the same period were approximately $10,500. User fees and boat license fees might provide some cost offsets, however, this action might well discourage use and ultimately reduce revenues. Administration and policing costs directly related to a licensing program/user fee program would further reduce the benefit. b. Property taxes from those peripheral properties which benefit from their proximity to the lagoon should also be considered in the revenue picture. The major portion of the property tax should be considered as providing basic City services, however that portion of the taxes derived from the increment of value associated with proximity to the lagoon, could well be considered as lagoon derived income. To illustrate this rationale: a $100,000 condominium unit, equivilant to an $90,000 unit in the vicinity of El Camino Real, would have an incremental value of $10,000 due to it's lagoon proximity or an additional tax burden of $100 which could be considered as lagoon related revenue. A "benefit district" might also be established to provide revenues more nearly meeting overall City costs for lagoon maintenance/management. This is a simplistic example of a highly complex process, but one which Council may wish to consider in more detail. The Agua Hedionda Specific Plan suggests the establishment of a benefit district to provide a revenue source for lagoon maintenance. SUMMARY DISCUSSION: 1. Resolution of the public trust issue and approval of the Agua Hedionda Specific Plan must be considered in sending a decision on the City's commitment to a long term agreement for lagoon management. 2. City retains responsibilities for public health, safety and welfare relating to the lagoon regardless of management agency. 3. The near time liability for unrestricted surface use may have to be mitigated prior to a final decision as to maintenance dredging. 4. Direct revenues do not offset direct costs at the present time. 5. Future "benefits" derived from the lagoon must be assessed to property owners and transient users in order to establish an equitable revenue base. Agua Hedionda (continued) -5- January 5, 1979 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Defer any long term commitment for lagoon management or maintenance until the issue of ownership is resolved. Alternatively, a long term agreement could be negotiated at this time with the inclusion of appropriate safeguards, i.e., escape clauses relating to ownership. 2. Monitor siltation rates by initiating a survey program to provide bottom profiles of selected areas on a six month frequency, to provide information on the impact of the draw of Encina 5 on the build up rate. This program will be less than the full survey conducted for Dr. Smith and is estimated to cost about $10,000 per year and would include periodic low tide photos. Rick Engineering, who did the original survey, will submit a proposal for this monitoring program. 3. Limit speed of power boats in the shoal areas to 5 M.P.H. This may pose serious restrictions to water ski launching and drop off at the only available launch area. This will reduce City liabilities for accidents/injuries, however, it will increase the policing requirements. ROGER/W. GREER Director of Utilities & Maintenance RWG:pag cc: PWA